well where to begin

i never new what circumcision was before but i have now and well i guess i am circumcised.

what my question is,is what are the ups.....and downs.

do women like circumcised penises?or think there gross

Depends on where you live. In America most men are circumcized- so most American women prefer them that way. In the rest of world most men are not- so most women prefer them that way .

There are alot of men who think that a make penis that has been circumcized has been butchered and has been deprived of its natural protection and has lost many of the nerve ending that cause pleasure.

I happen to think that been who are not circumcized are generally nicer to have oral sex with- because the foreskin acts as a natural shield between teeth and the most sensitive areas. I also think men with foreskin look better and are generally able to mantain erections longers----but that just my personal experience. Most American women disagree.

You might want to search here usingthe world circumcision or uncut and see what comes up.

Susan

I feel sorry for you bro. I was not circumsciced (thankfully) and I am thankful for that. The foreskin acts as a natural protection for the head of the penis. Some people think that circumscision prevents infection but that is bullshit. People should be able to chose if they want to be circumsciced or not, but usually parents force their infant sons to be cut.

Personally I don't agree with circumcision at all. Americans and Israelis/Jews love it for some reason cos it's 'cleaner' and more hygenic apparently. Which yes, may have been the case 2,000 years ago but now we have running water and soap and modern cleanliness standards in society, so the old reason is no longer valid in modern society.


However, the following articles (about the same thing) seem valid and reasonable.


http://www.circlist.com/considering/medbenfitsaids.html
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/Circumcision/stinwenws01009.html

Bob,

I completely agree. I think a man who has been circumcized has been short-changed---literally and figuratively (religious reasons aside.)

Susan

Well I'm not really that comfortable talking about this but I simply had to add another side to this rather one-sided discussion. Now I'm not gay, and I don't find penises necessarily attractive, but I think un-circumcized one's are quite ugly (no offnese intended).

Furthermore I've read statistics that circumcised men have a lower chance of contracting a disease, be it penile cancer (not common, but I've read it exists), or an STD.

And Billybob, if you live in North America, more girls would probably think it was gross if you weren't circumcised.

But either way it's probably not as big a deal as you think it is. Don't worry about it.

Jim,

Thanks for your point of view. Circumcision is happening less and less in the US. It is the only country in the world that is not primarily Jewish where it is stil commonplace.

Statistics on STDs and cancer are true- but the difference is miniscule.

And as a woman who prefers a man who has not been circumcized - I have seen penises that are that I think look butchered. And without exception, I think that men who are not circumcized have penises that function better for sex.

If an adult man wants to be circumcized- I am all for it. But I do not think we should circumcize baby boys whose choice to have an intact penis is forever gone. Why do you think foreskin exists anyway?

Susan

I remember watching a documentary on some African cultures that practice female circumcision. When the baby girl is born they cut off her clitoris so that she can't feel much pleasure during sex when she is older. Damn that is a very barbaric society. Hard to believe that it still happens. The most disheartening part about it is that mothers who had it done to them as a child are doing it to their daughters. Circumcision on both male or female is just stupid. I really don't care if I offend any Jews or other cultures that practice this.

Clay,

Again - please watch your language. You can say exactly what you want to say without being offensive. When you say what you say the way you do - it makes you sound stupid .

I too disagree with female and male circumcision becase I think it is abuse. Because I think it is unnecessary. Because I think it has no reasonable grounds to be done.

I think cultures/ religions who circumcise either boys or girls need to understand that the hygeinic reasons that once made sense no longer make sense. I think the culture/religion needs to adopt new rules.

IMO circumcision on boys is also about pleasure. Every man I have ever known who was not circumcized seemed to receive more pleasure from sex than the men I know who are. The penis was created with a foreskin that provides natural lubrication, a natural barrier again too much friction, and a natural mechansim to provide extra stimulation to the man - why on earth would any man want to cut that off? Tradition!

Susan

It is a shame to see this still happening for non-medical reasons. Also, the parents that are against masturbation of any kind perpetuate this tradition. One of their non-medical reasons, is since very sensitive nerve endings are cut and removed, the child will probably masturbate less. I'm not sure if this is true, but it does seems logical. Again, traditional beliefs.
As far as girls liking or hating the penis...... many girls don't even like to look at it. Others do. A lot of younger girls viewing it for the first time are surprised...they thought that it would be smoother and prettier..
When you get right down to it, a penis is not all that pretty...trimmed or untrimmed. Some have multiple bends with lots of veins showing, skinny on the end, fat near the body, with hair a third of the way up it, with a few lumps and bumps and just not that attractive.
I wouldn't worry about it...just be thankful that it works.

Clay there's no way to compare the two. In the middle east it's done to girls specifically to prevent pleasure during sex. In north America it's for hygeine. Preventing infections and diseases including penile cancer is not "just stupid"

Jim,

Sorry , you are wrong on this one. In the US we circumcize because of tradition, not hygiene.

When circumcision became the norm among Jews a LONG time ago it was because of hygiene -- because then soap and water were not available to use on a daily basis. People were lucky if they bathed once a week.

Now we circumcize because dads want their sons to look like them.

If there was no difference between how a penis with and without foreskin functioned - that would be OK. But there is.

Susan

----------------------------------------------------------------

A few paragraphs from a long article
http://www.infocirc.org/zoske.htm

Routine medical circumcision is similarly rooted in neither science nor medicine. Instead, it grew out of the mid-19th century's hysteria and superstition about masturbation. Given the sexual mores of that time, child-rearing practices, and the lack of understanding of much disease etiology, masturbation was blamed for a litany of ills.

Circumcision received a boost during World War II, with the justification that it helped minimize wartime "hygiene problems" (Gellis, 1978). Then, in the postwar years, another dynamic took hold-the growing class distinction in accessibility and utilization of health care. From the early 1940s to the late 1950s, "Educated middle-class parents almost always had their newborn sons circumcised," while, "the infant sons of poor parents were usually uncircumcised because their parents were unaware of the benefits [sic] and could not afford the cost

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP, 1971) formed an Ad Hoc Task Force Committee on Circumcision that reported its objection and reiterated its stand once again in 1975: "There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn"

Nature intended for "the glans of the unaroused penis to remain an internal organ (similar to the female clitoris shielded by its hood) with a lubricating mucous membrane as its outer surface, rather than becoming an external skin layer. During the arousal phase, the foreskin retracts gradually thereby allowing the glans to retain its highest tactile sensitivity until fully exposed during complete penile erection. The permanently exposed glans forms a dried, less sensitive skin layer called the corneum, as a somatic response to needing a protective replacement for the foreskin. The impact of circumcision upon the sexual nature of boys and men deserves consideration. A man's foreskin after all is not an anachronistic error by nature, but an important functional aspect of masculine sexuality.



______________________________________

From: http://www.manhood.mb.ca/facts.html
Facts and Myths about Circumcision

Myth:
To inhibit masturbation as it was believed to cause mental illness, blindness, etc.
Fact:
Today, masturbation is viewed as a healthy part of sexuality. In fact, it's the only sexual activity that is 'safe'.
Myth:
During the war years, men spent days and weeks in the trenches, making proper cleanliness difficult which led to a higher rate of infection in non-circumcised men.
Fact:
Today, wars are not fought or won in the trenches and cleanliness is not a problem.
Myth:
Uncircumcised penises were believed to be unclean or dirty and were responsible for a higher rate of infection.
Fact:
Cleanliness and proper hygiene should be routine - not circumcision. Actually, it is rarely documented that the rate of infection in circumcised infants is much higher during the diaper stages when the healing glans is exposed to feces and urine.
Myth:
Circumcision is normal. Father is circumcised so the son must be circumcised.
Fact:
Circumcision has become a cycle in our culture. One that needs to be broken. Removal of a functioning part of a child's body violates human rights, goes against medical ethics and ultimately damages men.
Myth:
Religious beliefs and rituals.
Fact:
These rituals are medieval and, if performed, should be discontinued. The pain an infant boy must feel travelling into existance, to be strapped in a chair having his penile glans ripped away from it's surface is un-measureable. When we are older and the foreskin has sepearated from the glans we can make the decision of circumcision suffering far less pain. Our success at life is greatly determined from our painful experiences, lets give our children one less. We may not remember, but lest not we forget. Please Educate Your Friends.
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DOC/end.html Doctors Opposing Circumcison

Routine circumcisions have been found to violate not only the Golden Rule, but the first tenet of medical practice, First, Do No Harm. Amazingly, circumcision violates all seven Principles of the A.M.A. Code of Ethics.

Circumcision is not surgery, by definition. Surgical procedures have been defined as: repair of wounds, extirpation of diseased organs or tissue, reconstructive surgery, and physiologic surgery (i.e. sympathectomy). Routine circumcision does not fall into any of these categories. Therefore, routine infant male circumcision is not a valid surgical procedure. Doctors' licenses do not permit them to cut people unless they are performing surgery, nor may they harm their patients.

America has the highest rate of AIDS in the industrialized world, and is the only major country which circumcises a majority of its males. Is there a connection? We do not know. Before a doctor performs a circumcision, must he not have the answer to this question: might this baby have an increased risk of AIDS - as the result of circumcision?

American men are now documenting the harm that has been done to them by doctors who operated on them without their consent. The bizarre practice of having parents tell a doctor whether and when to operate occurs nowhere else in medicine. According to modern medical ethics, parents do not have the right to consent to a procedure that is not in their son's best interests. The removal of a healthy, normal part of the male sexual organ is not in their son's best interests.

Jim, I don't believe that circumcision on boys prevents any kind of disease. As long as everytime you have a shower, you roll up the foreskin and wash your penis with soap, you should be alright. The problem is that many of us guys are too damn lazy to wash themselves properly, thus leaving themselves vulnerable to infections. As for penile cancer, that is very rare to begin with so its doubtful that it can be linked to circumcision.

from http://www.circinfo.net/#benefits

Dr Tom Wiswell, a respected authority in the USA was a strong opponent, but then switched camps as a result of his own research findings and the findings of others. This is what he has to say: "As a pediatrician and neonatologist, I am a child advocate and try to do what is best for children. For many years I was an outspoken opponent of circumcision ... I have gradually changed my opinion" [314, 315]. This ability to keep an open mind on the issue and to make a sound judgement on the balance of all available information is to his credit ... he did change his mind!

Wiswell looked at the complication rates of having or not having circumcision performed in a study of 136,000 boys born in US army hospitals between 1980 and 1985. 100,000 were circumcised and 193 (0.19%) had complications, mostly minor, with no deaths, but of the 36,000 who were not circumcised the problems were more than ten-times higher and there were 2 deaths [322]. A study by others found that of the 11,000 circumcisions performed at New York's Sloane Hospital in 1989, only 6 led to complications, none of which were fatal [246]. An early survey saw only one death amongst 566,483 baby boys circumcised in New York between 1939 and 1951 [195]. (There are no deaths today in developed countries.)

Problems involving the penis are encountered relatively frequently in pediatric practice [167]. A retrospective study of boys aged 4 months to 12 years found uncircumcised boys exhibited significantly greater frequency of penile problems (14% vs 6%; P less than 0.001) and medical visits for penile problems (10% vs 5%; P less than 0.05) compared with those who were circumcised. In infants born in Washington State from 1987-96, 0.2% had a complication arising from their circumcision, i.e., 1 in every 476 circumcisions [50]. It was concluded that 6 urinary tract infections could be prevented for every circumcision complication, and 2 complications can be expected for every penile cancer prevented [50].


http://www.circinfo.net/#cancer
(warning graphic photo if you scroll down)

In 5 major series in the USA, starting in 1932 [326], not one man with invasive penile cancer had been circumcised neonatally [177], i.e., this disease is almost completely confined to uncircumcised men. In fact penile cancer is so rare in a man who has been circumsized in infancy, that when it does occur it can even be the subject of a published case report [143]. The finite residual risk appears to be greater in those circumcised after the newborn period, but still less than the umcircimcised [177, 259, 260].

----------------------------------------
Those numbers are references BTW. Plus I've listened to some health shows in which callers who were not circumcised, phoned up and essentially couldn't retract their forskin without pain, and would have to be circumcised now anyway. Wouldn't it have been way better for them to have been operated on as an infant when they wouldn't even remember it? It'll probably be much worse for them now.


Anyway I just wanted to point out there were two sides to the story. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

My guess is that the real problem when uncircumcized men encounter problems is that they have not had good hygiene. I have had amazingly sad questions from guys here who have told me they have never washed under their foreskin because they were never taught to. And now they are having difficulty retracting their foreskin during masturbation. So far all of them have just needed a few weeks of gentle washing tiny bit by bit until all the foreskin can be retracted with ease.

Susan

I think you are right Susan. Either guys were never taught to wash under the foreskin or they just feel like it. I have always done that because it just seemed like the logical thing to do. Also, if you dont wash under it, it gets very smelly; even putrid.

Susan you seen to be the so called expert in here. So when holding that title learn how to spell circumcision correctly. You mispell it in all of your messages occassionally getting lucky and spelling it correctly. It's not spelled circumcized, it's "cised" not "sized". In conclusion, circumcision is useless and for religious reasons thats still funny. When God so-called told an aging Abraham who was 99 years old to circumcise himself and his sons religions grabbed on to that. The source isn't even credible to be honest. Abraham could have been drunk and has his mental health ever come into question? Looks like ol Abraham just wanted some attention. Poor bastard.

Careful there bro. Some Bible/Christian fanatics could be reading these messages and would not like you referring to "Father Abraham" as a drunken bastard. I really don't care though. I believe the Bible is a symbolic religious text that shouldn't be taken literally.

Next thing, that was pretty rude how you told Susan to spell circumcised. You could have just said "the correct spelling is circumcised." I'm surprised she didn't edit that post.

#1 This is my site. No matter if I am the expert or not - I am the "owner" of the site.

#2 There is more than one way to spell circumcision - there are different correct ways to spell it depending on what country's/ region's English spelling variation you use - and since I have lived in several English speaking countries and many states I use several versions.

#3 If you read the purpose of this site - it is partly to give people a space where they don't have to worry about spelling and grammar. This is largely for people with severe cognitive disabilities, but it is also for people like me who have dyslexia and dyscalcula. I spell with reversals a lot and sometimes go back and correct them later -but usually I am just trying to get a response to someone as quickly as possible and worry more about content than about spelling.

#4 As to your contention that there is no medical basis for circumcision- thta is generally true- it now mostly a cultural tradition. Cultural traditions are rooted in all sorts of things and I have my doubts that many people consider the medical ramifications of circumcision or the origins of whythe first person did it - they just do what the family they are a part of has always done in their lifetime.

Susan








\\\\

Susan said:

"I completely agree. I think a man who has been circumcized has been short-changed---literally and figuratively (religious reasons aside.)"

Well as a circumcised man, I would ask you not to pine for me.

I have no strong feelings for the circumcision debate(other than concerns expressed around any botched surgery).

But I cannot abide people who feel that I have missed out on something. Being circumcised is merely different. Not worse or better. For those that say that I have no way of knowing of the joys of having a foreskin, I can only reply that they are in the same predicement concerning the absence of one.

I have not once ever bemoaned my dispossessed foreskin, nor do I suspect that such a time will be forthcoming.

By all means offer your empathy(for sympathy helps no one) to those individuals who have suffered deformity and or decreased utility from a sloppy knife. But I would appreciate you save your mourning for those of us who merely lost a bit of skin.

How do I teach my son to clean under his foreskin? He is 2 and half now.

At 2 1/2 you can't expect him to do a good job- but he should learn to wash his penis just like the rest of his body. When he is older he needs to learn to pull back his foreskin and wash under it- but for now he just needs to learn to wash it well with a wash cloth and soap, and rinse it well.

Susan

Loudas, I hate to say it, but you are missing out by not having a foreskin. The orgasms that you can have with one just by rubbing the top of the penis with your foreskin are mind-blowing. And I'm being serious. I have never felt anything like this before with any other masterbation style, such as jerking. It's like the energy shoots through my body up to my facial muscles. It's wierd but also incredible. It's just a shame that you can't experience that too.

Getting circumcized is hygenic, healthy, and will make the penis appear and possibly be longer.(I can't remember exactly what the doctor told me, as I was 5 years old at the time)
To the issue of men remaining longer in bed, that has to due with purely man to man, and no physical alteration could affect that, short of piercings. Men last longer if you give them oral prior to sex and have sex with them in a regular basis.(At least once per day) Most men have heard this, but for those who haven't, you will last longer if you masturbate on a day where you know you'll be having sex. It might also help to start practicing while you masturbate, on willpower. Thinking of a certain thing that either turns you off or otherwise delays your orgasm will help a lot.

- Lessons from the Master, Jack.

Running water and soap, but how many parents teach their kids to clean themselves properly?

I've met many men that think it's okay to clean with just water.

I've also met many that don't clean at all!

i have been circumcised jus 3 weeks ago, i am 18 and ever since i can remember i have not been able to retract the foreskin, which is a right pain in the neck when putting condoms on an having sex

i think this was because of an operation i had on me nuts when i was only 9, they had to remove something and cut along my penis from the foreskin down, so im guessing when they putt it back together it didnt have as much skin as there was before

anyway its nearly healed now, it was right painful when i had it done, blood everywhere couldnt move properly, and it was sensitiver as hell! the glands have been hidden all their life so it was right annoyin.

well my erections dont hurt no more now (skin was being stretched before) and it seems i can keep an erection longer which will please the missus!!!

as for sensation im not gonna miss much seen as its never been uncovered...infact ill probs gain. im goin to see my gf in bout 2 weeks time (shes in hull) so ill test it out then!!

i would still prefere to have a foreskin tho... it looks cleaner...my foreskinless job looks bit ugly at the mo, but i had no choice really it had to be done

Out of all the girls I know and have been with, all viewed un-circumcized penis' as a turn off. I'm grateful to be circumcized.

You are obviously one of those men who NEED a circumcison. It happens - no doubt about it. I hope all goes well for you and you heal as quickly as possible!

Susan

Clay,

Tellimg me that the orgasms you have with a foreskin are better than the ones I have without one is the height of pretension.

Don't you see that orgasms being a subjective experience can never be compared. What might be mind-blowing to one, is merely par for the course for another.

To refute your argument all I would have to say is "Oh no, actually my orgasms are much better than yours". It is an untenable argument.

The best we could do would be to ask those that have had sex both before and after a circumcision(I have talked to a number of people, and I have heard both of better orgasms, and worse). And even that would be far from scientific.

So again. Save your commiseration for those more deserving.

You all know that there are ways to get the foreskin of the penis restored, correct? Corrective surgery does exist, and the skin can be stretched back out to restore the foreskin to its original length.

Meh, I don't miss my foreskin one bit. But hey, it'd be something new to try, eh?

http://www.cirp.org/news/boulware1/

When I think about this, it makes me wish I had the choice to be circumcised when I was 21. I think up until that time, I was blind to the fact that most men in the world were not.

I was circumcised when I was a baby, and the doctor was quite thorough. I've been with a couple guys that were cut but have a little extra skin (including my current partner), and I think I prefer those the best.

I do feel a little weird about my penis being robbed of some of its nerves, but there is really no use crying over spilt milk. Nothing I can do in this day in age will let me enjoy that. The orgasms I do have feel great, and my ability to please men doesn't seem to be greatly hindered.

I'm curious about the surgery though. I wonder if the skin is still sensitive after the surgery (if that's what it is). I just wouldn't want to have one unless it looked natural.

Ryan,

Skin stretches. Just image the belly of a pregnant woman. The skin on a penis can stretch too. That is essentially what is happening in most case where there is a discussion of foreskin restoration. The skin is manipulated to grow and stretch out and appear very similar to foreskin that was cut off, but actually not be precisely that. The nerves are gone- nothing can be done to restore those. Most men who have reported what sensation they feel afterwards report only positive differences - but not always positive enough to be worth the hassle.

There are men who have had skin grafted onto to their penis- usually it is removed from another part of your body.

I imagine in time with the new skin technology out there a time will come when foreskin can be restored as a simple plastic surgery procedure.

Susan

Now I am not Jewish but when you said:

I think cultures/ religions who circumcise either boys or girls need to understand that the hygeinic reasons that once made sense no longer make sense. I think the culture/religion needs to adopt new rules.

You should remember that as far as Jews go, it is not for hygenic reasons that they circumsise their boys. It is because they were told to do it. I don't know if you know much about religion, but if you really believe in one, you can't just ignore a commandment because you feel like it.